I am a Democrat. I haven't always voted for Democrats. But I am voting.
I am a Democrat because I believe that our country does best as a community. It provides the opportunity of success for all its citizens, yet it shows compassion and offers help to those who need it.
It lends a hand to guide the next generation up the ladder, rather than push the ladder over.
I believe in equality, but mostly in equality of justice, that rules and benefits apply to all.
I believe that a quality education is the road to success, and that if we hope to pass on the wonder of America, educating and training our fellow citizens and ourselves is our first priority.
I believe in government-effective, efficient government which exists to promote the best interests of all our people, not just groups in search of an special advantage. I believe government can, should and must address the great issues facing us, not as a matter of politics, but as a matter of survival; and I believe that government must create programs to solve these problems. I believe that it can.
And I believe that I have an obligation commensurate with the privilege and good fortune given me to be an American that I should pay my fair share to keep this country great.
Thomas Jefferson had great faith in the wisdom of the people of this country. I have begun to doubt his wisdom. I hope I am wrong.
I am a Democrat and a democrat. On November 6th, I am casting my vote, which has been secured and preserved for me over the years by those more heroic than I, for President Barack Obama, and other candidates who believe in the Promise of America for all.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
What Makes a Society Strong? Part 2-Employment
What occurs to me is that the old adage that idle hands are the devil's workshop is probably true. Certainly there are numerous current examples of how that might be so. There are also many examples of different effects of the devil's work.
Employment is the source of life for most people throughout the world. Simply stated, it provides 2 significant factors with a positive influence on society. First, the obvious one is money, which provides food, shelter and clothing, and hopefully a little more. Second, having gainful employment provides a means to achieve a sense that each day has had some accomplishment.
The opposite is also true. Here's where the devil comes to play. When people are without the ability to obtain the basics for existence, they are forced to find a means for survival. They also are unable to see a positive outcome each day.
What are the social consequences of employment? Probably too many for a non-academic to list, but include the ability to meet personal obligations-paying bills which most people want to do, the ability to "provide" for a family, the increase in choices of how and where to live, the reduction in reliance on government.
In my opinion, most people are more interested in taking care of themselves and their loved ones than they are in taking handouts. I'm sure there are plenty of studies of poverty and unemployment that bear this out. Having a job which pays enough to be socially mobile imbues a sense of freedom, from want, from criticism, from government. I certainly would prefer doing what I want on my time than being forced to make choices between worse and worst.
Not everyone will become rich by working, at least not rich by today's measures. But most people aren't interested in being rich. They want to be comfortable, have a few bucks to go out for dinner and a movie, to buy a car, or a house. By and large, they want to be left alone to do what they want.
And most people are willing to do what they need to do to get there if they can.
If there is any doubt about what happens when there is a permanent poverty stricken populace decides it has had enough, even with no goal or specific vision of how life could be better, look at the youth of Egypt. 80% of Egypt is young and poor. They can be influenced by opportunists with an agenda, telling them someone else is responsible for their condition. Today, where once there was a great advanced culture, there is little advancement. In spite of the century, they are still in the Dark Ages. The devil keeps them there.
Full employment in America is still considered only having 5% unemployed. What needs to be created in full employment, good wages and fulfilling work. Don't be fooled by "fulfilling". People find satisfaction in many ways, which is why so many people don't like their jobs. They are fulfilled by the fruits of their labor-a paycheck.
To keep the devil out, we rely on ourselves first, and then if that fails, we hope that there are other helping hands to get us back on our feet. That is why in my opinion we need a strong, focused government with leaders more intent on helping this country, which is made up of millions of people, not voting blocs, and less interested in themselves than in the people who put them there.
A strong society requires its members (the people's country club) to be active participants in its success. To be successful and to remain strong, a society has to work collectively to make all of its members successful. No one does it alone. To be strong, we must be a community.
Thanks for stopping by.
Employment is the source of life for most people throughout the world. Simply stated, it provides 2 significant factors with a positive influence on society. First, the obvious one is money, which provides food, shelter and clothing, and hopefully a little more. Second, having gainful employment provides a means to achieve a sense that each day has had some accomplishment.
The opposite is also true. Here's where the devil comes to play. When people are without the ability to obtain the basics for existence, they are forced to find a means for survival. They also are unable to see a positive outcome each day.
What are the social consequences of employment? Probably too many for a non-academic to list, but include the ability to meet personal obligations-paying bills which most people want to do, the ability to "provide" for a family, the increase in choices of how and where to live, the reduction in reliance on government.
In my opinion, most people are more interested in taking care of themselves and their loved ones than they are in taking handouts. I'm sure there are plenty of studies of poverty and unemployment that bear this out. Having a job which pays enough to be socially mobile imbues a sense of freedom, from want, from criticism, from government. I certainly would prefer doing what I want on my time than being forced to make choices between worse and worst.
Not everyone will become rich by working, at least not rich by today's measures. But most people aren't interested in being rich. They want to be comfortable, have a few bucks to go out for dinner and a movie, to buy a car, or a house. By and large, they want to be left alone to do what they want.
And most people are willing to do what they need to do to get there if they can.
If there is any doubt about what happens when there is a permanent poverty stricken populace decides it has had enough, even with no goal or specific vision of how life could be better, look at the youth of Egypt. 80% of Egypt is young and poor. They can be influenced by opportunists with an agenda, telling them someone else is responsible for their condition. Today, where once there was a great advanced culture, there is little advancement. In spite of the century, they are still in the Dark Ages. The devil keeps them there.
Full employment in America is still considered only having 5% unemployed. What needs to be created in full employment, good wages and fulfilling work. Don't be fooled by "fulfilling". People find satisfaction in many ways, which is why so many people don't like their jobs. They are fulfilled by the fruits of their labor-a paycheck.
To keep the devil out, we rely on ourselves first, and then if that fails, we hope that there are other helping hands to get us back on our feet. That is why in my opinion we need a strong, focused government with leaders more intent on helping this country, which is made up of millions of people, not voting blocs, and less interested in themselves than in the people who put them there.
A strong society requires its members (the people's country club) to be active participants in its success. To be successful and to remain strong, a society has to work collectively to make all of its members successful. No one does it alone. To be strong, we must be a community.
Thanks for stopping by.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
What Makes a Society Strong? Part One-Education
What occurs to me is that we have forgotten what creates muscles. Exercise is the answer. Constant exercise. How then do we create intellectual muscle? Exercise? We call it education. In a recent article, I don't remember who wrote it, I read that 80 million members of our workforce have a high school education, out of 130 million workers. The bulk of new jobs that will be available will require exercise. Our current workforce is undertrained for the current market. There are today more than three million jobs nationwide which are available, but there are not enough people with the needed skills to fill the jobs.
There is a need at the corporate level to recognize that internal growth will require upgrading their own workforces. With continuing education. Not just rewarding people for taking classes, but coordinating the corporate need with educators. And educators need to upgrade their own skills. Here's a problem that is easily solved. Kids today know more about computers than their teachers, and the schools don't teach the skills that the market will need. This speaks to the state education departments who fail in properly designing curriculum. Why do colleges have so many "english majors"? Maybe the entire education infrastructure needs a new look.
Education is important in and of itself. An educated populace is engaged in the activities of life-family, community, the world. Education is also important when applied to employment. America has moved beyond the basic manufacturing economy of the past. Manufacturing no longer is the business of the past. Today it is complex, and more often than not it is sophisticated. Learning to function in that environment requires education capable of matching that sophistication.
How we reach that level is another conversation. It is clear, however, if we remain at the current levels of science and technology in comparison to the rest of the world, America will become a fallen empire. We will go the way of Rome, the British Empire. Yet, we as a country have continually said we are not a second rate nation, we can do better.
To do better, we need a longer time horizon, and a plan to reach a lofty goal-returning to the top. This is not about teachers' unions, or charter schools, or Federal laws or state programs. What it is about is demanding of all the participants-students, teachers, parents, government-that excellence is not a hope, but an expectation. And knowing and understanding why it is important needs to be a part of curriculum design, political discussion, social programs, and community involvement. Otherwise, we doom our children to second class citizenship, and our country to a status which our foreparents would not have found acceptable.
Thanks for stopping by.
There is a need at the corporate level to recognize that internal growth will require upgrading their own workforces. With continuing education. Not just rewarding people for taking classes, but coordinating the corporate need with educators. And educators need to upgrade their own skills. Here's a problem that is easily solved. Kids today know more about computers than their teachers, and the schools don't teach the skills that the market will need. This speaks to the state education departments who fail in properly designing curriculum. Why do colleges have so many "english majors"? Maybe the entire education infrastructure needs a new look.
Education is important in and of itself. An educated populace is engaged in the activities of life-family, community, the world. Education is also important when applied to employment. America has moved beyond the basic manufacturing economy of the past. Manufacturing no longer is the business of the past. Today it is complex, and more often than not it is sophisticated. Learning to function in that environment requires education capable of matching that sophistication.
How we reach that level is another conversation. It is clear, however, if we remain at the current levels of science and technology in comparison to the rest of the world, America will become a fallen empire. We will go the way of Rome, the British Empire. Yet, we as a country have continually said we are not a second rate nation, we can do better.
To do better, we need a longer time horizon, and a plan to reach a lofty goal-returning to the top. This is not about teachers' unions, or charter schools, or Federal laws or state programs. What it is about is demanding of all the participants-students, teachers, parents, government-that excellence is not a hope, but an expectation. And knowing and understanding why it is important needs to be a part of curriculum design, political discussion, social programs, and community involvement. Otherwise, we doom our children to second class citizenship, and our country to a status which our foreparents would not have found acceptable.
Thanks for stopping by.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Guns and Tears, Part 5
What occurs to me is that it is very soon, too soon, since Guns and Tears, part 4 discussed the continuing epidemic of gun violence which goes on unrelenting. On Friday night, in Aurora, Colorado, a movie crowd was attacked by a man with a semi-automatic rifle, shotgun and Glock pistol. 12 more dead, 58 wounded, and a weekend of horror including disarming an apartment full of explosives.
The apartment contained 6000 rounds of ammunition. The gunman had obtained bullet proof gear similar to what SWAT teams use. This attack had been planned.
Today, there are more families and friends mourning. Another lone gunman, perhaps mentally imbalanced, says the NRA. All weaponry obtained legally. And the kicker, political blab is "nothing would have been different" if we had better control of guns. Excuse me, but that doesn't make any sense. Guns do kill people, dead. They wound and they will permanently affect those who survived, and the families of those who were killed. "Our prayers and condolences are with the families of the victims." Talk about meaningless, empty words.
Unlimited magazines, unlimited ammunition purchase, and unlimited deregulation of firearms equal unlimited killings. When will we, law-abiding citizens, who as part of our 2nd Amendment rights, to not bear arms, yell loud enough to say this is indeed the time, the best time, to discuss rational ways to control access to these killers.
I have postulated that our political class should be made up entirely of females. That would at least give us a rational explanation for politicians not having balls.
Guns DO kill people.
Thanks for stopping by.
The apartment contained 6000 rounds of ammunition. The gunman had obtained bullet proof gear similar to what SWAT teams use. This attack had been planned.
Today, there are more families and friends mourning. Another lone gunman, perhaps mentally imbalanced, says the NRA. All weaponry obtained legally. And the kicker, political blab is "nothing would have been different" if we had better control of guns. Excuse me, but that doesn't make any sense. Guns do kill people, dead. They wound and they will permanently affect those who survived, and the families of those who were killed. "Our prayers and condolences are with the families of the victims." Talk about meaningless, empty words.
Unlimited magazines, unlimited ammunition purchase, and unlimited deregulation of firearms equal unlimited killings. When will we, law-abiding citizens, who as part of our 2nd Amendment rights, to not bear arms, yell loud enough to say this is indeed the time, the best time, to discuss rational ways to control access to these killers.
I have postulated that our political class should be made up entirely of females. That would at least give us a rational explanation for politicians not having balls.
Guns DO kill people.
Thanks for stopping by.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Understanding Unemployment
What occurs to me is that people aren't going back to work any time soon. Not because they don't want to. Not because they are "lazy", "spoiled", "animals" or other nice things that have been said about the jobless by Republican "leaders". Rather, they are not going back to work because even low wage jobs are not readily available, and in particular, the long term unemployed are lacking the specific skills needed in the current economy.
We are living with the worst long term unemployment since the Great Depression. Then, the unemployment rate was higher, and went from the early 1930s until the middle of World War II. In between, while the private sector was recovering, the government moved decisively to provide a source of income to millions, who in turn, spent what they made. When the New Deal programs were cut back, the economy worsened, until the war activated employment in the "war effort".
Today, the statistics are appallling, but can be and have been analyzed by economists everywhere. The first line of defense was Unemployment Insurance, not available in the 1930s. The individual States are responsible for the first 26 weeks of benefits. After that, the Federal Government picks up the tab. And what is that tab? Well, there's a good question. I have searched for 2 years to find out how much has been spent on unemployment benefits by both the States and the Feds. I know the data is around, because I called Mark Zandi, got an assistant, who told me it was proprietary to his company, Moody's. I tried the Bureau of Labor Statistics, not available. I tried columnists, no answer. I asked a friend who runs a State Unemployment program. No response.
So I did some arithmetic. Learned it in grade school. I assumed $250.00 per week and 12.7 million people unemployed and still looking for work, as of June 2012, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That totals $165.1 Billion Dollars, per year. Understand that this is my estimate. But if you add that since 2009, that's a lot of money. And I would bet every penny was spent back into the economy.
What does that mean? It means that there are a lot of people who could have been put back to work, earning a living, even a meager one, for the dollars spent after week 26. It means that state coffers would not be empty, and no longer available for continued unemployment. The 99ers, so called because the maximum number of weeks the benefits will be paid is 99 weeks, would have a chance to get up each morning, go to a job, and not slowly be forgotten. They would have a chance to maintain or rebuild a skill set necessary to participate gainfully in this economy.
The failure of Congress to implement a modern day version of the New Deal is criminal neglect. There is and has been structural unemployment in this country for years. Structural unemployment is simply defined as the lack of skilled workers in a place where the skills are needed. People are structurally unemployed because they do not have the skills required to fill jobs in their location. Matching skills and mobility is necessary to resolve this condition. That means today you have to have a knowledge of computers, hardware and software, to be qualified for virtually any job. You need an education. Reading and writing are nowhere near enough. There are no factories, where granddad and dad worked anymore. There is a racial component to structural unemployment, which is a book by itself.
Okay, so what do we do? Lots of people much smarter than I am have proposed a variety of answers. To me, the most effective way to move things forward is a commitment by the Federal government, I mean Congress, to do what has not been done. The Society of Civil Engineers has said that the infrastructure of America, built by a generation deserving to be called "Greatest", has lived its useful life and needs to be rebuilt. The commitment I have in mind is this. The Engineers said to repair what needs fixing will costs $2.2 Trillion. For the next 10 years, commit $220 Billion to rebuilding America. That's about the same amount as unemployment costs us now, and a little more taken from the Defense Department since we are not spending it in Iraq. So far, no new tax money.
I did a little more arithmetic. 220 Billion divided by an average wage of $40,000 would put 5.4 million people back to work. For 10 years. The money they will spend, plus the new business that will be created around the new construction areas, will further expand the growth. It's not a "high paying job", but it's work. And it matters. It will take 2 million newly employed people to reduce the unemployment rate by 1%. This approach still won't bring us to full employment, and doesn't take into consideration the 12-15 million others who are working part-time or who have given up. But positive movement has always created its own inertia. It will this time too.
There is another part of the plan that must be included and integrated to make the whole work. Training and education. We must increase and improve the focus on education for future employment needs now. Industrial skills, information technology skills, financial skills are all going to be needed in the future and will bring structural unemployment to an end. Without this kind of commitment, we will watch politicians allow this country to go dissolve into ruin, on many levels. The shame of it is that it doesn't have to happen.
We are all in this mess together. The proverbial rising tide raises all boats. But we need to have the boats first.
Thanks for stopping by.
We are living with the worst long term unemployment since the Great Depression. Then, the unemployment rate was higher, and went from the early 1930s until the middle of World War II. In between, while the private sector was recovering, the government moved decisively to provide a source of income to millions, who in turn, spent what they made. When the New Deal programs were cut back, the economy worsened, until the war activated employment in the "war effort".
Today, the statistics are appallling, but can be and have been analyzed by economists everywhere. The first line of defense was Unemployment Insurance, not available in the 1930s. The individual States are responsible for the first 26 weeks of benefits. After that, the Federal Government picks up the tab. And what is that tab? Well, there's a good question. I have searched for 2 years to find out how much has been spent on unemployment benefits by both the States and the Feds. I know the data is around, because I called Mark Zandi, got an assistant, who told me it was proprietary to his company, Moody's. I tried the Bureau of Labor Statistics, not available. I tried columnists, no answer. I asked a friend who runs a State Unemployment program. No response.
So I did some arithmetic. Learned it in grade school. I assumed $250.00 per week and 12.7 million people unemployed and still looking for work, as of June 2012, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That totals $165.1 Billion Dollars, per year. Understand that this is my estimate. But if you add that since 2009, that's a lot of money. And I would bet every penny was spent back into the economy.
What does that mean? It means that there are a lot of people who could have been put back to work, earning a living, even a meager one, for the dollars spent after week 26. It means that state coffers would not be empty, and no longer available for continued unemployment. The 99ers, so called because the maximum number of weeks the benefits will be paid is 99 weeks, would have a chance to get up each morning, go to a job, and not slowly be forgotten. They would have a chance to maintain or rebuild a skill set necessary to participate gainfully in this economy.
The failure of Congress to implement a modern day version of the New Deal is criminal neglect. There is and has been structural unemployment in this country for years. Structural unemployment is simply defined as the lack of skilled workers in a place where the skills are needed. People are structurally unemployed because they do not have the skills required to fill jobs in their location. Matching skills and mobility is necessary to resolve this condition. That means today you have to have a knowledge of computers, hardware and software, to be qualified for virtually any job. You need an education. Reading and writing are nowhere near enough. There are no factories, where granddad and dad worked anymore. There is a racial component to structural unemployment, which is a book by itself.
Okay, so what do we do? Lots of people much smarter than I am have proposed a variety of answers. To me, the most effective way to move things forward is a commitment by the Federal government, I mean Congress, to do what has not been done. The Society of Civil Engineers has said that the infrastructure of America, built by a generation deserving to be called "Greatest", has lived its useful life and needs to be rebuilt. The commitment I have in mind is this. The Engineers said to repair what needs fixing will costs $2.2 Trillion. For the next 10 years, commit $220 Billion to rebuilding America. That's about the same amount as unemployment costs us now, and a little more taken from the Defense Department since we are not spending it in Iraq. So far, no new tax money.
I did a little more arithmetic. 220 Billion divided by an average wage of $40,000 would put 5.4 million people back to work. For 10 years. The money they will spend, plus the new business that will be created around the new construction areas, will further expand the growth. It's not a "high paying job", but it's work. And it matters. It will take 2 million newly employed people to reduce the unemployment rate by 1%. This approach still won't bring us to full employment, and doesn't take into consideration the 12-15 million others who are working part-time or who have given up. But positive movement has always created its own inertia. It will this time too.
There is another part of the plan that must be included and integrated to make the whole work. Training and education. We must increase and improve the focus on education for future employment needs now. Industrial skills, information technology skills, financial skills are all going to be needed in the future and will bring structural unemployment to an end. Without this kind of commitment, we will watch politicians allow this country to go dissolve into ruin, on many levels. The shame of it is that it doesn't have to happen.
We are all in this mess together. The proverbial rising tide raises all boats. But we need to have the boats first.
Thanks for stopping by.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Writing A Book
What occurs to me is that I have been remiss in continuing to be present in the blogosphere. Not a good excuse, but I have finished the final preparation for publishing my first book. Hopefully not my last. I have to say that the more I write with a product in mind, the more fun it has become. My first book is a retrospective on the 20th Century and early 2000s, following the people and events through the life of a remarkable man, my Dad. Born before World War I, he lived through the Depression, was an Army officer during World War II, and was part of a generation of people who went on to build new lives and a new world, creating the most successful nation in the history of the world. His part was unique as those who knew him realized. But his part was not his alone. He was among a generation who saw the future and molded their lives to reach that future, to the benefit of those who would follow. I have told his story. You may have a story to tell also. Tell it. We no longer have the written personal histories which historians will be able to discover in old boxes. We have emails, delete.
Thanks for stopping by.
Thanks for stopping by.
Job Creators
What occurs to me is that there is a lot of discussion about job creators which makes very little sense to me. In a former lifetime, I owned and ran a business, and at its peak, there were over 80 people who worked for me. I wasn't a job creator. The people I did business with, my customers, were the job creators. When I started, I had four employees. As business increased, I hired more people, and we became more diversified. We had established a reputation for both service and quality, and word spread, and as our volume increased, in order to maintain that reputation, we brought on more people. It isn't wealthy people making investments that create jobs, it's people spending money on goods and services which they want and need. If helping the job creators is a reasonable goal of the government, then putting policies in place to put Americans back to work is the only real way to support job creators. The more people who have more to spend, the more jobs will be created. According to an association of engineers, civil engineers I think, America has 2.2 trillion dollars worth of infrastructure creation, repair and maintenance that needs to be done. Even if its spread over 10 years, $220 billion dollars will put a lot of people back to work doing things which need to be done. It will also help bring back the support services for the businesses, reduce the government outlay for unemployment (the amount of which is never discussed and financial statistics are not readily available), open doors for the youth who will be the source of future development, and will help reduce our national debt. The rich aren't job creators, and its time we all get that message.
I have listened to "job creators" for a decade, and wonder where are the jobs? The wealthy have had the vast benefit of all the tax reductions and the rhetoric. Mr. Boehner, where are the jobs?
Thanks for stopping by.
I have listened to "job creators" for a decade, and wonder where are the jobs? The wealthy have had the vast benefit of all the tax reductions and the rhetoric. Mr. Boehner, where are the jobs?
Thanks for stopping by.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Paying taxes
What occurs to me is that like most people, I hate paying taxes. Yet, I can't help but wonder how we would all have any services provided if we didn't pay taxes. So let's talk about it. I pay property taxes which pays for schools, garbage pickup, street repair, lighted streets, police patrolling, street cleaning, recycling, tree maintenance and public park maintenance. None of these things could I do for myself. I pay an assessment for local sewer, which I certainly can't and wouldn't want to take care of myself. There are probably other things my local taxes are used for, but I can't think of them right now.
I pay taxes to the state, which goes for many things, similar in content to what the Federal government uses my taxes for. I also pay a sales tax, a separate cigarette tax (yeah, I still smoke), a liquor tax (occasionally), car registration fees, and other fees which don't come to mind right now.
I pay income tax to the Federal government, as well as all the other add-ons which show up in products and services I purchase, like the Federal gas tax, Social Security, Medicare, unemployment, disability and again, other fees and taxes some of which none of us really knows or even thinks about.
I am no different from most people when it comes to taxes. But what may be different is that I don't think taxes are such a bad thing. Don't get me wrong. I'd rather have the money, but I also look at how the money is being used, and by and large, my money pays for things which I think benefit all of us. Now, there's an argument to be made here, I know. So let's have it.
Right now, the Federal government brings in less than it spends. In the past decade or so, the Federal government gave two major tax cuts, financed two wars, and created a new Medicare program to pay for drugs for the elderly. The Federal government bailed out our financial system and the automobile industry. No wonder we have a budget deficit and national debt. Prior to this massive outpouring of generosity, the budget was balanced and the national debt was being reduced. That's important to remember.
Yet, the Republican Congress and recalcitrant Senate Republicans have stepped aside from their responsibility to govern, and have made regaining the White House their singular agenda. The problem of having financially solvent governments at all levels is having enough money to operate on, and enough restraint to remember its not their money being spent. The solution is not more taxes or less spending, its both.
If you don't think you're paying for this depression, you're wrong. There are 30 million people who would like to be working more than they are. That's a lot of tax revenue. Many of those people have collected unemployment, which came from state revenue, then Federal revenue, for those who went past 26 weeks. The governments may have helped with medical bills, food, child care for them also, as well as others. While the unemployment rate remains up, no improvement in our housing values is likely to happen. My house is way down. How about yours?
What needs to happen is a tax increase, not just on the rich. Folks, we're in this together. We also need to get rid of the free ride corporations have, and other tax breaks for special interests. I mean all of them. Look at it this way--when you're bleeding to death, bandaids don't work, and a transfusion is a waste. What we need is to stop the bleeding, first. We need to restructure what we are paying for, then ease into cuts if they are necessary. We need to use all resources, including tax money, to put people back to work. That includes training of chronically un- and underemployed. When the programs have been set up and offered, then we can say if you don't want to work, it's on you.
There will always be those who miss the bus, who will never get on it. There are those who for reasons beyond their control will always need help. And that's when the governments must step in. I don't have a problem with the government getting tougher, but not on an ideological basis. This is a society supposedly based on Judeo-Christian ethics. To me, that's do unto others, love thy neighbor. Maybe it's time to remember that. It's not a sound bite, but a way of life. And the way we need to live. We're in this boat together, and either a rising tide lifts us all, or we're all sunk.
If you don't agree, take a shot. I can take it.
Thanks for stopping by.
I pay taxes to the state, which goes for many things, similar in content to what the Federal government uses my taxes for. I also pay a sales tax, a separate cigarette tax (yeah, I still smoke), a liquor tax (occasionally), car registration fees, and other fees which don't come to mind right now.
I pay income tax to the Federal government, as well as all the other add-ons which show up in products and services I purchase, like the Federal gas tax, Social Security, Medicare, unemployment, disability and again, other fees and taxes some of which none of us really knows or even thinks about.
I am no different from most people when it comes to taxes. But what may be different is that I don't think taxes are such a bad thing. Don't get me wrong. I'd rather have the money, but I also look at how the money is being used, and by and large, my money pays for things which I think benefit all of us. Now, there's an argument to be made here, I know. So let's have it.
Right now, the Federal government brings in less than it spends. In the past decade or so, the Federal government gave two major tax cuts, financed two wars, and created a new Medicare program to pay for drugs for the elderly. The Federal government bailed out our financial system and the automobile industry. No wonder we have a budget deficit and national debt. Prior to this massive outpouring of generosity, the budget was balanced and the national debt was being reduced. That's important to remember.
Yet, the Republican Congress and recalcitrant Senate Republicans have stepped aside from their responsibility to govern, and have made regaining the White House their singular agenda. The problem of having financially solvent governments at all levels is having enough money to operate on, and enough restraint to remember its not their money being spent. The solution is not more taxes or less spending, its both.
If you don't think you're paying for this depression, you're wrong. There are 30 million people who would like to be working more than they are. That's a lot of tax revenue. Many of those people have collected unemployment, which came from state revenue, then Federal revenue, for those who went past 26 weeks. The governments may have helped with medical bills, food, child care for them also, as well as others. While the unemployment rate remains up, no improvement in our housing values is likely to happen. My house is way down. How about yours?
What needs to happen is a tax increase, not just on the rich. Folks, we're in this together. We also need to get rid of the free ride corporations have, and other tax breaks for special interests. I mean all of them. Look at it this way--when you're bleeding to death, bandaids don't work, and a transfusion is a waste. What we need is to stop the bleeding, first. We need to restructure what we are paying for, then ease into cuts if they are necessary. We need to use all resources, including tax money, to put people back to work. That includes training of chronically un- and underemployed. When the programs have been set up and offered, then we can say if you don't want to work, it's on you.
There will always be those who miss the bus, who will never get on it. There are those who for reasons beyond their control will always need help. And that's when the governments must step in. I don't have a problem with the government getting tougher, but not on an ideological basis. This is a society supposedly based on Judeo-Christian ethics. To me, that's do unto others, love thy neighbor. Maybe it's time to remember that. It's not a sound bite, but a way of life. And the way we need to live. We're in this boat together, and either a rising tide lifts us all, or we're all sunk.
If you don't agree, take a shot. I can take it.
Thanks for stopping by.
Monday, April 16, 2012
Guns and Tears, Part 4-The Guns
What occurs to me is that in the aftermath of the Trayvon Martin killing, and subsequent arrest (finally) of George Zimmerman the routinely unmentioned question of guns has been absent throughout the coverage. So let's talk about it. I'm not against guns, nor am I unfamiliar with them. Many people own them, most who are responsible people who respect the power that guns have. Unfortunately, especially for those responsible people, there are many who are not. Among those who are irresponsible I number Wayne Lapierre and the NRA. In a country where there are more guns than people, and where guns are included in so many deaths, it seems to me that there must be a middle ground where guns stop being mentioned in the death statistics we constantly hear.
Trayvon Martin was killed by a gun. The person who killed him probably should not have had one. In an op-ed piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer this past week, the writer told of 8 killings of young African American males and wounding of 35 others who were taken to Temple University Hospital, since the beginning of 2012. Over the weekend, there were 5 people killed in Oklahoma by two men who randomly selected people in a predominantly black community. Killed by guns, not by racism.
The NRA refuses to accept that the product of guns and irresponsibility is death. I'm not talking about hunters or collectors or recreational users. And I'm not talking about the Second Amendment right to own guns, which has been validated by the courts. I'm talking about the logical need for control of those who would purchase for the purpose of using on other people. Law enforcement knows this is happening, legislators know it is happening, and yet the middle ground solutions don't ever seem to be found.
I was confronted with an argument recently which is compelling. Let everyone carry, and then there would be a deterrent. Criminals would be more reluctant if they had to decide if the potential victim might be carrying. Let's look at Martin-Zimmerman. If Trayvon were carrying of and was confronted by the gun toting Zimmerman, would the outcome be different. What do you think the probability is that Trayvon would have been arrested on the spot, despite the Stand Your Ground law. What would have been accomplished was another gun death, nothing more.
I remember from not too long ago a saying that went "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." NRA at work. I don't remember however anyone ever suggesting that guns be outlawed. If we seek a more civilized society, a civil dialogue does need to occur. Guns of all kinds have fingerprints, identifiable ballistic fingerprints which can be traced to a particular firearm. If every gun were identifiable, then the geneology of a weapon could be followed. If that gun were then registered, it would have a family tree. If access was limited and transfer was recorded, then where the guns are would be readily available. "Lost" guns would have to be reported.
The argument here is between individual freedoms and the public welfare. Those who oppose gun registration of any kind fall back on their "rights", to the exclusion of the safety and well-being of the rest of us. The statistics are clear. The law enforcement community has already made its position clear. Hunters, you want to shoot animals with automatic weapons, fine. Seems a little unfair, and not very "sportsmanlike". Handgun owners, you need to have one to protect your family, fine. Just keep your 7 year old away from it.
Folks, I don't care if you have a gun. But from a societal viewpoint, we all need to recognize that not everyone who has a gun is going to be a responsible citizen. Those guns really are loose cannons. And unless you want to return to those thrilling days of yesteryear, the Old West, guns need to be out of the reach of those who shouldn't have them. Every time a gun becomes a participant in a crime, a shooting, a killing, those who refuse to recognize my rights to not be shot, those individuals and organizations are at least partially to blame. Especially in cities, where people are crammed together, a more societal solution is required. All you anti-government folks need to get a grip, because nobody wants to take away your guns. All we want is for you not to be part of the problem by fighting what really needs to be done.
If people who shouldn't have guns didn't, only those who know how to be responsible members of our society will have guns. And all the Trayvon Martins will still be alive.
Thanks for stopping by.
Trayvon Martin was killed by a gun. The person who killed him probably should not have had one. In an op-ed piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer this past week, the writer told of 8 killings of young African American males and wounding of 35 others who were taken to Temple University Hospital, since the beginning of 2012. Over the weekend, there were 5 people killed in Oklahoma by two men who randomly selected people in a predominantly black community. Killed by guns, not by racism.
The NRA refuses to accept that the product of guns and irresponsibility is death. I'm not talking about hunters or collectors or recreational users. And I'm not talking about the Second Amendment right to own guns, which has been validated by the courts. I'm talking about the logical need for control of those who would purchase for the purpose of using on other people. Law enforcement knows this is happening, legislators know it is happening, and yet the middle ground solutions don't ever seem to be found.
I was confronted with an argument recently which is compelling. Let everyone carry, and then there would be a deterrent. Criminals would be more reluctant if they had to decide if the potential victim might be carrying. Let's look at Martin-Zimmerman. If Trayvon were carrying of and was confronted by the gun toting Zimmerman, would the outcome be different. What do you think the probability is that Trayvon would have been arrested on the spot, despite the Stand Your Ground law. What would have been accomplished was another gun death, nothing more.
I remember from not too long ago a saying that went "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." NRA at work. I don't remember however anyone ever suggesting that guns be outlawed. If we seek a more civilized society, a civil dialogue does need to occur. Guns of all kinds have fingerprints, identifiable ballistic fingerprints which can be traced to a particular firearm. If every gun were identifiable, then the geneology of a weapon could be followed. If that gun were then registered, it would have a family tree. If access was limited and transfer was recorded, then where the guns are would be readily available. "Lost" guns would have to be reported.
The argument here is between individual freedoms and the public welfare. Those who oppose gun registration of any kind fall back on their "rights", to the exclusion of the safety and well-being of the rest of us. The statistics are clear. The law enforcement community has already made its position clear. Hunters, you want to shoot animals with automatic weapons, fine. Seems a little unfair, and not very "sportsmanlike". Handgun owners, you need to have one to protect your family, fine. Just keep your 7 year old away from it.
Folks, I don't care if you have a gun. But from a societal viewpoint, we all need to recognize that not everyone who has a gun is going to be a responsible citizen. Those guns really are loose cannons. And unless you want to return to those thrilling days of yesteryear, the Old West, guns need to be out of the reach of those who shouldn't have them. Every time a gun becomes a participant in a crime, a shooting, a killing, those who refuse to recognize my rights to not be shot, those individuals and organizations are at least partially to blame. Especially in cities, where people are crammed together, a more societal solution is required. All you anti-government folks need to get a grip, because nobody wants to take away your guns. All we want is for you not to be part of the problem by fighting what really needs to be done.
If people who shouldn't have guns didn't, only those who know how to be responsible members of our society will have guns. And all the Trayvon Martins will still be alive.
Thanks for stopping by.
Monday, April 9, 2012
Guns and Tears, Part 3-Rush to Judgment
It occurs to me that there is a great deal of commentary regarding the Trayvon Martin case, much of which has been described as race baiting and a rush to judgment. In the month since this killing took place, there are numerous details, some contradictory, which have become part of the public discourse. "The facts" are never going to be fully known. There are some however that are clear. Trayvon Martin is dead, his crime being only that he was a black male, walking through an apartment complex wearing a "hoodie." His killer was George Zimmerman. He has not been arrested to date.
In America, we have a system of laws and law enforcement, which for the most part, works. We have a court system which also works pretty well. And as citizens, we all have rights. If we are involved in a crime, theoretically we are subject to law enforcement and the judicial system. Here is another fact for the Martin case portfolio. As of this writing, the law enforcement and judicial parts of our system have malfunctioned. Ultimately, this may change, but I wonder if that would be the case if there had not been so much public attention. I think not. Since Trayvon was killed, there have been 16 killings, attributable to race, which have not received any amount of public scrutiny.
I sympathize with Trayvon's parents, and can never truly understand the underlying fear that parents must have for the safety of their children if they are poor, minority or of some other group that might be targeted. But as I have already said, the white middle class is not immune, and if the conditions which allow such killings are not controlled and eliminated, we may be hearing about killings in revenge, but with no relation to the kids who are killed. They will be declared as random or unrelated, but we will all know that the reason was simply a response to our failure to demand justice when we know that it has been ignored.
I don't know what happened when Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman met that night in Florida. I do know that Zimmerman admitted the killing. I also know that were the roles reversed, Trayvon would have been arrested. Period. No question. Only through a court process will the events be presented and judged. I don't know what the outcome will be. But I have studied history, and there are many examples of institutional failures which led to the end of civilized society. We have seen it before and we have today a much more rapid means to let the world know what is going on. The social media has helped to end the regime in Egypt. It has described the situation in Libya and in Syria. It has expanded the "99%" movement, and has a major role in political activities here. The use of the ether can be a source to change our social interactions for the benefit of all, or it can be a source of creating warring factions which will destroy what we all want to consider a civilized society.
There are two common factors that connect unrest with uprising. The first is a fertile environment; the second is guns. And without the second, you can grow flowers.
Thanks for stopping by.
In America, we have a system of laws and law enforcement, which for the most part, works. We have a court system which also works pretty well. And as citizens, we all have rights. If we are involved in a crime, theoretically we are subject to law enforcement and the judicial system. Here is another fact for the Martin case portfolio. As of this writing, the law enforcement and judicial parts of our system have malfunctioned. Ultimately, this may change, but I wonder if that would be the case if there had not been so much public attention. I think not. Since Trayvon was killed, there have been 16 killings, attributable to race, which have not received any amount of public scrutiny.
I sympathize with Trayvon's parents, and can never truly understand the underlying fear that parents must have for the safety of their children if they are poor, minority or of some other group that might be targeted. But as I have already said, the white middle class is not immune, and if the conditions which allow such killings are not controlled and eliminated, we may be hearing about killings in revenge, but with no relation to the kids who are killed. They will be declared as random or unrelated, but we will all know that the reason was simply a response to our failure to demand justice when we know that it has been ignored.
I don't know what happened when Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman met that night in Florida. I do know that Zimmerman admitted the killing. I also know that were the roles reversed, Trayvon would have been arrested. Period. No question. Only through a court process will the events be presented and judged. I don't know what the outcome will be. But I have studied history, and there are many examples of institutional failures which led to the end of civilized society. We have seen it before and we have today a much more rapid means to let the world know what is going on. The social media has helped to end the regime in Egypt. It has described the situation in Libya and in Syria. It has expanded the "99%" movement, and has a major role in political activities here. The use of the ether can be a source to change our social interactions for the benefit of all, or it can be a source of creating warring factions which will destroy what we all want to consider a civilized society.
There are two common factors that connect unrest with uprising. The first is a fertile environment; the second is guns. And without the second, you can grow flowers.
Thanks for stopping by.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Some things for Spring
It occurs to me that we need a little whimsy on a sunny Spring day. This is the time of year that I love the best. For the past few years, I have increased my gardening skills to make an impact on my morning walk to pick up the newspaper. (Yes, I still read one, made of printers ink and wood pulp!) Spring came early here this year. Two weeks ago, crocuses said "We're back." The daffodils followed, and are now completing their visit. This week, the tulips exploded in the colorful display I keep hoping for. Bright red, soft white, yellow, purple. Lilies are pushing up, daylilies are green and growing. I dug a new bed for the three hydrangeas I bought. I have callas, oriental lilies, begonias, and foxglove ordered. The peonies are stretching and after 3 years, I hope to have some SERIOUS plants. The rhododendron is starting to bud. Even the boxwoods have a bunch of new growth. I love digging in the dirt. Next come the veggies-tomatoes, peppers, and whatever else seems interesting.
Winter officially ends on Monday, according to me. After a long winter, the NCAA March Madness finals will crown a champion, and winter is over. And next week is Opening Day. For those of you who don't know, that means its baseball season. Finally, again. Go PHILS.
Thanks for stopping by.
Winter officially ends on Monday, according to me. After a long winter, the NCAA March Madness finals will crown a champion, and winter is over. And next week is Opening Day. For those of you who don't know, that means its baseball season. Finally, again. Go PHILS.
Thanks for stopping by.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Guns and Tears, Part 2
What occurs to me in the aftermath of the Trayvon Martin killing is that there is a long trail of death caused by those willing to use violence against those who are different. As painful as it is for this kid's family, as difficult as it is for people to come to grips with the inaction of authorities, and as inexcusable as the action itself is, it is enlightening to look more closely at the plethora of "hate" crimes, not just in America, but through the world. What is most important in looking at the history is finding the complicity of authority in the continuance of crimes of murder, assault, and other forms of terrorizing.
There appear to be two kinds of activity that can be called "hate crimes". The first type is individual or group on individual; the second is actually more deadly, government sponsored and protected murder. In recent times, according to the American Psychological Association, "Most hate crimes are carried out by otherwise law-abiding young people who see little wrong with their actions. Alcohol and drugs sometimes help fuel these crimes, but the main determinant appears to be personal prejudice, a situation that colors people's judgment, blinding the aggressors to the immorality of what they are doing. Such prejudice is most likely rooted in an environment that disdains someone who is "different" or sees that difference as threatening. One expression of this prejudice is the perception that society sanctions attacks on certain groups." "Extreme hate crimes tend to be committed by people with a history of antisocial behavior. One of the most heinous examples took place in June 1998 in Jasper, Texas. Three men with jail records offered a ride to a black man who walked with a limp. After beating the victim to death, they dragged him behind their truck until his body was partially dismembered."
In France, last week, an attack was made on a Jewish school, killing 3 children and a rabbi. Three white men in Mississippi pleaded guilty last week for killing a black man, beating him to death last year. A woman in California was beaten to death with a tire iron. She was an Iraqi Muslim and was found with a note saying "Go back to your own country, you terrorist."
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, in 2011, the number of hate groups in the United States exceeded 1000 for the first time.
This is not new, folks, but is ingrained in American history. Starting with white settlement in the 17th century, systematic killing of those who are "different" is a part of our national DNA. We all know about slavery, the abuses of immigrants, Jim Crow laws and lynch mobs, the KKK, the neo-Nazi "skinheads", the militia groups. We also know about the varied abuses either overlooked by police or direct police participation. Rodney King? What about the gay kid at Rutgers University? or the one in Wyoming a few years ago?
Then we can add those crimes which have been condoned by or caused by the governments world wide. Shia versus Sunni throughout the Middle East. Protestant versus Catholic in Ireland, and throughout history. How about "niggers", "spics", "gooks", "kikes". And there's plenty more, just pick a group. How about Nazi Germany? or the gulags of the Soviet Union? What about the tribal conflicts, murder, maimings, rapes, in a variety of African countries? All these are because people are "different".
What is the common thread? Weapons and power. The power of a government over the people it controls acting outside of moral law is heinous. So is the power of a group to attack, terrorize, and kill. Add to the mix available weapons, and murder is an expected outcome. It hasn't had a reason to stop, because "good" people don't raise their voices. In my opinion, this is the reason that the Trayvon Martin case has been so visible. A kid walking home from a store, talking on the phone with his girlfriend. Dead. Some good people have said, "ENOUGH". Weapons, power, and a government structure willing to look the other way, outside of the law.
I don't know how to stop hate, not a clue. But I do know that if we continue to allow the worst to happen to anyone, randomly, we are in danger of more widespread and dangerous times. And the problem is that we have so much more in common than we have differences, but are unable to get beyond what we have absorbed for so many years. It is naive to think that there are not those who benefit from the continuation of social hatred.
I don't want to think that when I am walking the dog that I need a gun to go around the block. No one should.
Thanks for stopping by.
There appear to be two kinds of activity that can be called "hate crimes". The first type is individual or group on individual; the second is actually more deadly, government sponsored and protected murder. In recent times, according to the American Psychological Association, "Most hate crimes are carried out by otherwise law-abiding young people who see little wrong with their actions. Alcohol and drugs sometimes help fuel these crimes, but the main determinant appears to be personal prejudice, a situation that colors people's judgment, blinding the aggressors to the immorality of what they are doing. Such prejudice is most likely rooted in an environment that disdains someone who is "different" or sees that difference as threatening. One expression of this prejudice is the perception that society sanctions attacks on certain groups." "Extreme hate crimes tend to be committed by people with a history of antisocial behavior. One of the most heinous examples took place in June 1998 in Jasper, Texas. Three men with jail records offered a ride to a black man who walked with a limp. After beating the victim to death, they dragged him behind their truck until his body was partially dismembered."
In France, last week, an attack was made on a Jewish school, killing 3 children and a rabbi. Three white men in Mississippi pleaded guilty last week for killing a black man, beating him to death last year. A woman in California was beaten to death with a tire iron. She was an Iraqi Muslim and was found with a note saying "Go back to your own country, you terrorist."
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, in 2011, the number of hate groups in the United States exceeded 1000 for the first time.
This is not new, folks, but is ingrained in American history. Starting with white settlement in the 17th century, systematic killing of those who are "different" is a part of our national DNA. We all know about slavery, the abuses of immigrants, Jim Crow laws and lynch mobs, the KKK, the neo-Nazi "skinheads", the militia groups. We also know about the varied abuses either overlooked by police or direct police participation. Rodney King? What about the gay kid at Rutgers University? or the one in Wyoming a few years ago?
Then we can add those crimes which have been condoned by or caused by the governments world wide. Shia versus Sunni throughout the Middle East. Protestant versus Catholic in Ireland, and throughout history. How about "niggers", "spics", "gooks", "kikes". And there's plenty more, just pick a group. How about Nazi Germany? or the gulags of the Soviet Union? What about the tribal conflicts, murder, maimings, rapes, in a variety of African countries? All these are because people are "different".
What is the common thread? Weapons and power. The power of a government over the people it controls acting outside of moral law is heinous. So is the power of a group to attack, terrorize, and kill. Add to the mix available weapons, and murder is an expected outcome. It hasn't had a reason to stop, because "good" people don't raise their voices. In my opinion, this is the reason that the Trayvon Martin case has been so visible. A kid walking home from a store, talking on the phone with his girlfriend. Dead. Some good people have said, "ENOUGH". Weapons, power, and a government structure willing to look the other way, outside of the law.
I don't know how to stop hate, not a clue. But I do know that if we continue to allow the worst to happen to anyone, randomly, we are in danger of more widespread and dangerous times. And the problem is that we have so much more in common than we have differences, but are unable to get beyond what we have absorbed for so many years. It is naive to think that there are not those who benefit from the continuation of social hatred.
I don't want to think that when I am walking the dog that I need a gun to go around the block. No one should.
Thanks for stopping by.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Guns and Tears
What occurs to me is that in August 1955, a young black kid went to visit relatives. He went missing. When he was found, he had a bullet hole behind his right ear, was missing an eye, had evidence of having been beaten. He was found with a 70 pound weight, a cotton gin, attached around his neck with barbed wire, dumped in a river. His name was Emmett Till. He was 14 years old.
In the late evening, in June of 1963, arriving home after a day of meetings, a young black man was shot in the back from the shadows across the road. He died instantly as his wife and children looked on. His name was Medgar Evers.
In the summer of 1964, three young men, who were working to help register voters during the Freedom Summer, disappeared. Their bodies were found two months later, in an earthen dam, in a Mississippi swamp. They had been shot. Their names were Andrew Goodman, James Cheney, and Michael Schwerner.
In February 2012, a young African American boy was returning home, after having walked to a store to buy a snack of iced tea and Skittles. While walking, he was talking on his cell phone to his girl friend. He was accosted by a man, who shot him, dead. His name was Trayvon Martin.
In the first three cases, the killers were acquitted. Only when years passed were the cases reopened, and some convictions were actually obtained.
In the case of Trayvon Martin, his killer was released at the scene, of the murder he had committed, by the police. After nation-wide outrage, the US Department of Justice has stepped in, as has the Florida Attorney General's office. After 3 weeks of doing nothing.
There have been throughout our history crimes committed because of hate, many of which have gone untried, un-convicted, un-arrested, unresolved. With each case, and with each crime, come the tears of the loved ones who never had the chance to say good-bye. And each time, when good people fail to raise a voice in protest, this country takes another step away from God.
To each of these, and to Trayvon's family especially, today, we shed a tear for you, for your son, and for ourselves as a nation. To those who can accept what has happened without that tear, you are as much a demon as the trigger puller.
And why do we have to have this conversation about guns once again, with no resolution? This is a conversation for another time. Tonight should be a time of reflection and prayer.
Thanks for stopping by.
In the late evening, in June of 1963, arriving home after a day of meetings, a young black man was shot in the back from the shadows across the road. He died instantly as his wife and children looked on. His name was Medgar Evers.
In the summer of 1964, three young men, who were working to help register voters during the Freedom Summer, disappeared. Their bodies were found two months later, in an earthen dam, in a Mississippi swamp. They had been shot. Their names were Andrew Goodman, James Cheney, and Michael Schwerner.
In February 2012, a young African American boy was returning home, after having walked to a store to buy a snack of iced tea and Skittles. While walking, he was talking on his cell phone to his girl friend. He was accosted by a man, who shot him, dead. His name was Trayvon Martin.
In the first three cases, the killers were acquitted. Only when years passed were the cases reopened, and some convictions were actually obtained.
In the case of Trayvon Martin, his killer was released at the scene, of the murder he had committed, by the police. After nation-wide outrage, the US Department of Justice has stepped in, as has the Florida Attorney General's office. After 3 weeks of doing nothing.
There have been throughout our history crimes committed because of hate, many of which have gone untried, un-convicted, un-arrested, unresolved. With each case, and with each crime, come the tears of the loved ones who never had the chance to say good-bye. And each time, when good people fail to raise a voice in protest, this country takes another step away from God.
To each of these, and to Trayvon's family especially, today, we shed a tear for you, for your son, and for ourselves as a nation. To those who can accept what has happened without that tear, you are as much a demon as the trigger puller.
And why do we have to have this conversation about guns once again, with no resolution? This is a conversation for another time. Tonight should be a time of reflection and prayer.
Thanks for stopping by.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Ending War in Afghanistan
What occurs to me is that United States involvement in Afghanistan needs to end quickly. Now, that's clearly as obvious a statement as anyone could make. If you consider only Afghanistan, that no other country has succeeded in ruling there, going back to Alexander the Great, that the US has spent 10 years trying to bring a democratic, all-inclusive government for the Afghanis, and then read about the continuing failures to bring a unified government into the country, the only logical conclusion is to leave. If you only look at the costs in lives, US military and our NATO allies, Afghani combatants, civilians, weighed against the gains, why are we still there? And if leaving were so easy, what's the problem? It seems pretty easy to weigh the pros and cons. After all, the reason we went in the first place, Osama bin Laden, is no longer an issue.
I have two concerns about a simplistic approach to leaving. First, for ten years, we have faced the prospect of a safe haven for terrorists just across the border in Pakistan. Although the Pakistanis are supposedly our ally, there has been an uncomfortable relationship with the military there, as demonstrated by the presence of bin Laden in a Pakistani military community perhaps for years. Add to that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Nukes in the hands of an unstable government threaten the region and the world. Can we seriously consider abandoning the region when we know that the nukes are in unpredictable hands? We know that there is a less than friendly relationship with India, which also has nukes. If we are concerned about Iranian development of nuclear weapons, how can we ignore a place where they already exist? My second concern is for the civilian population, particularly the women, in Afghanistan. We have brought 21st Century customs to a culture tottering on the brink of return to the 14th Century. If we leave, do we condemn the women there to a culture which will eliminate the freedoms which we had hoped to bring to this population? When we leave, we must do so with the full knowledge that we are resigning the Afghanis to the Taliban. Some will say that isn't our problem, that the government is corrupt, that they should choose their own way of life. On the other hand, remember the US fought a war in the early 1860s to prevent one section of this country from choosing their own way of life.
Prior to World War I and then again, prior to World War II, the United States, protected by oceans, was content to let the rest of the world do what it would. We learned after the Second World War that it was to our advantage to participate in world affairs. After the dismantling of the Soviet Union, the US was the only "super power" remaining which was capable of dealing with international problems. Yet, we have been attacked over those protective oceans, so we must remain vigilant, or it will happen again. Today we face new potential threats, such as growing economic powerhouses in China, India, Brazil. We are confronted with a growing belligerence in Russia. We are watching with crossed fingers as the "Arab Spring" expands, hoping that we aren't watching a scorching "Arab Summer". What about our ally, Israel, which has for more than sixty years, been surrounded by countries dedicated to its eradication? Every man and woman in Israel has learned to look over their proverbial shoulder, every minute of every day. We must be cognizant of how our actions will be interpreted by Egypt, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinians. Is our political rhetoric, especially from Republican candidates Romney, Santorum and Gingrich, or John McCain's affinity for bombing everything, undermining efforts to end conflicts?
If you look at pictures of the Middle East or Afghanistan, you are confronted with an image that could be a moonscape. Deserts and mountains, with limited water, overwhelming poverty and illiteracy, wealth gaps of monumental proportion are the rule, not the exception. Corrupt governments, many of which we have supported, have failed to provide for their people, but help perpetuate US financial and business interests, and won us the title, "Great Satan". Can we allow war as an instrument of foreign policy to guide our relations with the rest of the world? Can we afford to be the "policeman of the world"? Should we follow a policy of supporting governments which oppress their own people so we can obtain their natural resources, like oil? These are questions we all must ask ourselves because the answers influence the choices our politicians make.
Bill Maher said the other night that the next time we go to war for oil, we should get some oil. Perhaps the next time we go to war, we should have a really good reason.
Foreign policy is a maze, and we have made constant wrong turns. Because our democracy causes a change in leadership on a regular basis, we bring different views and policies to bear on the international stage. That can be both good and bad, especially when dealing with entrenched despots. We have kept the Karzai government is place in Afghanistan, which has not proven to be in our interests. But if we leave, or when we leave, we must accept the fact that the Afghan people will revert to a way of life we may not want to see. The same can be said of Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, and Iraq. We already have a problem with Iran.
In case you are unsure of what I'm getting at, let me say simply that I would like the US to leave Afghanistan tomorrow. And that in spite of what I would like, I'm not sure that is a good idea. If I'm not able to be definitive, imagine how the experts and policy makers must feel. There are more than two sides to this coin. This won't be the last time I wonder what to do.
Thanks for stopping by.
I have two concerns about a simplistic approach to leaving. First, for ten years, we have faced the prospect of a safe haven for terrorists just across the border in Pakistan. Although the Pakistanis are supposedly our ally, there has been an uncomfortable relationship with the military there, as demonstrated by the presence of bin Laden in a Pakistani military community perhaps for years. Add to that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Nukes in the hands of an unstable government threaten the region and the world. Can we seriously consider abandoning the region when we know that the nukes are in unpredictable hands? We know that there is a less than friendly relationship with India, which also has nukes. If we are concerned about Iranian development of nuclear weapons, how can we ignore a place where they already exist? My second concern is for the civilian population, particularly the women, in Afghanistan. We have brought 21st Century customs to a culture tottering on the brink of return to the 14th Century. If we leave, do we condemn the women there to a culture which will eliminate the freedoms which we had hoped to bring to this population? When we leave, we must do so with the full knowledge that we are resigning the Afghanis to the Taliban. Some will say that isn't our problem, that the government is corrupt, that they should choose their own way of life. On the other hand, remember the US fought a war in the early 1860s to prevent one section of this country from choosing their own way of life.
Prior to World War I and then again, prior to World War II, the United States, protected by oceans, was content to let the rest of the world do what it would. We learned after the Second World War that it was to our advantage to participate in world affairs. After the dismantling of the Soviet Union, the US was the only "super power" remaining which was capable of dealing with international problems. Yet, we have been attacked over those protective oceans, so we must remain vigilant, or it will happen again. Today we face new potential threats, such as growing economic powerhouses in China, India, Brazil. We are confronted with a growing belligerence in Russia. We are watching with crossed fingers as the "Arab Spring" expands, hoping that we aren't watching a scorching "Arab Summer". What about our ally, Israel, which has for more than sixty years, been surrounded by countries dedicated to its eradication? Every man and woman in Israel has learned to look over their proverbial shoulder, every minute of every day. We must be cognizant of how our actions will be interpreted by Egypt, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinians. Is our political rhetoric, especially from Republican candidates Romney, Santorum and Gingrich, or John McCain's affinity for bombing everything, undermining efforts to end conflicts?
If you look at pictures of the Middle East or Afghanistan, you are confronted with an image that could be a moonscape. Deserts and mountains, with limited water, overwhelming poverty and illiteracy, wealth gaps of monumental proportion are the rule, not the exception. Corrupt governments, many of which we have supported, have failed to provide for their people, but help perpetuate US financial and business interests, and won us the title, "Great Satan". Can we allow war as an instrument of foreign policy to guide our relations with the rest of the world? Can we afford to be the "policeman of the world"? Should we follow a policy of supporting governments which oppress their own people so we can obtain their natural resources, like oil? These are questions we all must ask ourselves because the answers influence the choices our politicians make.
Bill Maher said the other night that the next time we go to war for oil, we should get some oil. Perhaps the next time we go to war, we should have a really good reason.
Foreign policy is a maze, and we have made constant wrong turns. Because our democracy causes a change in leadership on a regular basis, we bring different views and policies to bear on the international stage. That can be both good and bad, especially when dealing with entrenched despots. We have kept the Karzai government is place in Afghanistan, which has not proven to be in our interests. But if we leave, or when we leave, we must accept the fact that the Afghan people will revert to a way of life we may not want to see. The same can be said of Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, and Iraq. We already have a problem with Iran.
In case you are unsure of what I'm getting at, let me say simply that I would like the US to leave Afghanistan tomorrow. And that in spite of what I would like, I'm not sure that is a good idea. If I'm not able to be definitive, imagine how the experts and policy makers must feel. There are more than two sides to this coin. This won't be the last time I wonder what to do.
Thanks for stopping by.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Responding to a Smart Reader
What occurs to me is that even when someone tries to avoid saying things which can be misinterpreted, there will be times when they can be misunderstood. This is a lesson for everyone in our daily lives. Even the most innocuous comment can be hurtful, even if not intended. One reader responded to me that my comment about Jeremy Lin could be implied to mean that other basketball players are not smart. The interrelations of race and intelligence have been an underlying negative force in the dialogue of American, and perhaps world, race relations for as long as I have been alive, and way before.
My comment was meant to say that being smart is cool. We have for years used terms such as geek and nerd to classify smart kids who don't have physiques like Arnold Schwartzenegger, who play chess, and who could run circles around us on a computer. My generation, including me, call the "kids" when we can't figure out what we did to lose what we typed in the computer, and they have answers. And can anyone look at Bill Gates, a college dropout (of course the college was Harvard), and have any doubt that being smart is cool? Or Mark Zuckerberg?
Intelligence like that is a gift, no less than the ability to be a professional athlete. Have no doubt, however that the achievements are not automatic. Hours in a classroom, or a gym, or both. Hours in analysis of problems whether on the field or the code printout. Being neither a gifted, or even barely competent athlete, and not being as smart as I at one time thought I was, I appreciate both the jock and the geek, and wish them the best of the future.
But more importantly, I would like to see more emphasis on smart, because that is where the future will be determined. Academics and athletics cannot be mutually exclusive activities in a school environment. Too often we hear of athletes being allowed to progress through school simply because they are athletes, and the academics are not important. This is especially true in college sports, which are the showcase, the lead-up, to professional sports. If academics are ignored, we leave our student athletes short of the promise made to them--to get an education. Why is that important? Because there must be a foundation prepared when inevitably the skills diminish, when age sets in. There is life after 30. We must be sure that the kids who play ball are ready for it.
Whether you are White or Black, Asian or Hispanic or Native American, or anything else, you can learn to be smart at something. Finding what you do best is the means to a successful future. Smart is cool.
Thanks for stopping by.
My comment was meant to say that being smart is cool. We have for years used terms such as geek and nerd to classify smart kids who don't have physiques like Arnold Schwartzenegger, who play chess, and who could run circles around us on a computer. My generation, including me, call the "kids" when we can't figure out what we did to lose what we typed in the computer, and they have answers. And can anyone look at Bill Gates, a college dropout (of course the college was Harvard), and have any doubt that being smart is cool? Or Mark Zuckerberg?
Intelligence like that is a gift, no less than the ability to be a professional athlete. Have no doubt, however that the achievements are not automatic. Hours in a classroom, or a gym, or both. Hours in analysis of problems whether on the field or the code printout. Being neither a gifted, or even barely competent athlete, and not being as smart as I at one time thought I was, I appreciate both the jock and the geek, and wish them the best of the future.
But more importantly, I would like to see more emphasis on smart, because that is where the future will be determined. Academics and athletics cannot be mutually exclusive activities in a school environment. Too often we hear of athletes being allowed to progress through school simply because they are athletes, and the academics are not important. This is especially true in college sports, which are the showcase, the lead-up, to professional sports. If academics are ignored, we leave our student athletes short of the promise made to them--to get an education. Why is that important? Because there must be a foundation prepared when inevitably the skills diminish, when age sets in. There is life after 30. We must be sure that the kids who play ball are ready for it.
Whether you are White or Black, Asian or Hispanic or Native American, or anything else, you can learn to be smart at something. Finding what you do best is the means to a successful future. Smart is cool.
Thanks for stopping by.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Writing Isn't the Hard Part
What occurs to me is that what I am doing, what so many others are doing, what many have done for so many years, writing on a regular basis, is challenging. Writing requires planning of both subject and then what exactly to say. It requires careful word selection so present the specific idea the writer wants the reader to understand. Also, it requires the discipline to prepare properly, to set aside the time, which is difficult for all but those who have absolutely nothing else to do.
Every writer wants to tell a story, regardless of the type. Whether news, history, business or fantasy, the story must be designed to draw the reader to the lesson which makes the story important to the reader. A dedicated writer must therefore have selected a topic, researched the needed information, learned enough to become expert at least for the story, and then write it. Finding the right theme, the proper word truly matters so as to make the point clear.
When I started this blog, I thought I had enough material to write an entry each day, no problem. Not so. As I have reviewed just the list I made on my first post, I have realized that even small pieces of any of the topics would require thought before writing. Once a post is made public, I realized I couldn't take it back. So, it requires me to be circumspect and not write when I haven't done my homework.
I would like to write every day, and on those days when I can, I will. I promised myself that this was not a Tweet or a FB post. It won't be. So for those who have read my stories thus far, thank you. I owe you the courtesy of not writing junk. Consequently, I will have material that is prepared which I can say, "Please read", and be able to stand behind it.
Thanks for stopping by.
Every writer wants to tell a story, regardless of the type. Whether news, history, business or fantasy, the story must be designed to draw the reader to the lesson which makes the story important to the reader. A dedicated writer must therefore have selected a topic, researched the needed information, learned enough to become expert at least for the story, and then write it. Finding the right theme, the proper word truly matters so as to make the point clear.
When I started this blog, I thought I had enough material to write an entry each day, no problem. Not so. As I have reviewed just the list I made on my first post, I have realized that even small pieces of any of the topics would require thought before writing. Once a post is made public, I realized I couldn't take it back. So, it requires me to be circumspect and not write when I haven't done my homework.
I would like to write every day, and on those days when I can, I will. I promised myself that this was not a Tweet or a FB post. It won't be. So for those who have read my stories thus far, thank you. I owe you the courtesy of not writing junk. Consequently, I will have material that is prepared which I can say, "Please read", and be able to stand behind it.
Thanks for stopping by.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Why I Would Be Pissed If I Were A Woman
What occurs to me after a week of uncontrolled vitriol about women, in Congress, in the news, on the politic talk shows, and from Rush Limbaugh is that we are regurgitating the same garbage that I heard in high school and college. Cloaked in fallacious arguments about religious freedom, the attacks are aimed to denigrate women, and in particular and by association, liberal, progressive, Democratic women.
Let's look at the past few weeks. We had the question of contraceptive coverage by insurance companies for employers who were affiliated with religious organizations, read this as Catholic Church. An accommodation was made by the President which was acceptable to those folks who wanted a reasonable solution, although not to those who won't agree to anything that Mr Obama does.
For a few days, we were assaulted by the Susan G. Komen Foundation's decision to stop support for Planned Parenthood, led by a woman who is an avowed right wing activist and anti-Choice female. Although she resigned, the Komen position discarded its mission of helping women, in a non-partisan effort to end breast cancer, and as an organization, elected to accept a political position. Regardless of the resignation of Karen Handel, Susan G. Komen has lost the trust of many people, because they didn't prevent Ms. Handel from doing the damage in the first place. Their works were admirable, their words are meaningless now. My donation will go elsewhere.
We have watched over the past months' efforts by politicians to pass "personhood" legislation, which would make use of contraception illegal. In Mississippi and Colorado, the legislation was defeated by public referendum. In the last couple of weeks, the state legislature of Virginia proposed a bill to require women to undergo a trans-vaginal probe ultrasound in order to obtain an abortion. The law was changed to require a "less" invasive procedure, after Governor McDonald saw that his chances to become a Vice Presidential candidate were hanging by a thread. V.P-Vaginal Probe. Great campaign slogan.
This week, we were treated by Rushbo to a full scale attack on a female law student who was denied by the Republicans an opportunity to address the issue of medical need for contraception, and why she believed coverage was critical. She was accorded the opportunity to discuss her testimony at a forum composed of Democrats, particularly female legislators. Limbaugh used his radio show to attack this woman as a slut and prostitute. He said he wanted to see sex videos of all the women who take birth control pills, if he was going to pay for those pills. After losing a number of advertisers, and hopefully more to come, he offered a typical apology, claiming that he was trying to be funny. If you can't take a joke...is that the idea, Rush? There were no Republican candidates who were willing to criticize Limbaugh, and no members of the Republican party willing to do so either.
Mixed in with all this rhetoric was the comment made by Santorum supporter, Foster Friess, about putting aspirin between their knees so women wouldn't have to spend so much on birth control pills. What if there were a requirement for a penile probe to get Viagra, Mr. Friess? Would you keep your knees together?
Admit it, guys, men are pigs. And we keep proving it. My problem with this issue is that there is no possible logic behind it. Men benefit as much as women by birth control pills. No pregnancy, no abortion, no "shot gun wedding". I do not like abortions, especially as a political issue. I think abortion is none of my business. And it's none of any man's business, other than a doctor, spouse or significant other, even if he is a one-night stand. Letting men make decisions about women's health is as logical as being "pro-life" and in favor of capital punishment, or killing doctors who perform abortions.
Another issue is employers having the right, by conscience, to decide what should be allowed in an employee health benefit program. Maybe I'm a little old fashioned here, but don't employers choose what policies they will make available now? The problem is employer based health insurance, but that's another story.
Forty years ago, the early stages of the modern feminist movement was an on-going news story. Today, we are watching it again. For years, women were controlled either by their fathers or husbands. Slowly, state by state, different laws allowed women to have some control over property they owned. Until President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2009, with no Republican support, unequal pay was allowed by law. There is still no Federal law granting women equality in our society.
America has been an example, or at least we want to think we have, for the rest of the world. Civil rights however have not been "granted" to any group. There have been pitched battles, some bloody, some deadly, so a minority could reach legal parity to some degree. Race relations are still being fought over, and women will need to continue to fight. If indeed we are to give hope to other populations, such as the women of Afghanistan, who face the threat of being forced back into the middle ages, women need to win this fight. And support from men would be helpful. But guys, if you can't help, shut up and get out of the way.
Thanks for stopping by.
Let's look at the past few weeks. We had the question of contraceptive coverage by insurance companies for employers who were affiliated with religious organizations, read this as Catholic Church. An accommodation was made by the President which was acceptable to those folks who wanted a reasonable solution, although not to those who won't agree to anything that Mr Obama does.
For a few days, we were assaulted by the Susan G. Komen Foundation's decision to stop support for Planned Parenthood, led by a woman who is an avowed right wing activist and anti-Choice female. Although she resigned, the Komen position discarded its mission of helping women, in a non-partisan effort to end breast cancer, and as an organization, elected to accept a political position. Regardless of the resignation of Karen Handel, Susan G. Komen has lost the trust of many people, because they didn't prevent Ms. Handel from doing the damage in the first place. Their works were admirable, their words are meaningless now. My donation will go elsewhere.
We have watched over the past months' efforts by politicians to pass "personhood" legislation, which would make use of contraception illegal. In Mississippi and Colorado, the legislation was defeated by public referendum. In the last couple of weeks, the state legislature of Virginia proposed a bill to require women to undergo a trans-vaginal probe ultrasound in order to obtain an abortion. The law was changed to require a "less" invasive procedure, after Governor McDonald saw that his chances to become a Vice Presidential candidate were hanging by a thread. V.P-Vaginal Probe. Great campaign slogan.
This week, we were treated by Rushbo to a full scale attack on a female law student who was denied by the Republicans an opportunity to address the issue of medical need for contraception, and why she believed coverage was critical. She was accorded the opportunity to discuss her testimony at a forum composed of Democrats, particularly female legislators. Limbaugh used his radio show to attack this woman as a slut and prostitute. He said he wanted to see sex videos of all the women who take birth control pills, if he was going to pay for those pills. After losing a number of advertisers, and hopefully more to come, he offered a typical apology, claiming that he was trying to be funny. If you can't take a joke...is that the idea, Rush? There were no Republican candidates who were willing to criticize Limbaugh, and no members of the Republican party willing to do so either.
Mixed in with all this rhetoric was the comment made by Santorum supporter, Foster Friess, about putting aspirin between their knees so women wouldn't have to spend so much on birth control pills. What if there were a requirement for a penile probe to get Viagra, Mr. Friess? Would you keep your knees together?
Admit it, guys, men are pigs. And we keep proving it. My problem with this issue is that there is no possible logic behind it. Men benefit as much as women by birth control pills. No pregnancy, no abortion, no "shot gun wedding". I do not like abortions, especially as a political issue. I think abortion is none of my business. And it's none of any man's business, other than a doctor, spouse or significant other, even if he is a one-night stand. Letting men make decisions about women's health is as logical as being "pro-life" and in favor of capital punishment, or killing doctors who perform abortions.
Another issue is employers having the right, by conscience, to decide what should be allowed in an employee health benefit program. Maybe I'm a little old fashioned here, but don't employers choose what policies they will make available now? The problem is employer based health insurance, but that's another story.
Forty years ago, the early stages of the modern feminist movement was an on-going news story. Today, we are watching it again. For years, women were controlled either by their fathers or husbands. Slowly, state by state, different laws allowed women to have some control over property they owned. Until President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2009, with no Republican support, unequal pay was allowed by law. There is still no Federal law granting women equality in our society.
America has been an example, or at least we want to think we have, for the rest of the world. Civil rights however have not been "granted" to any group. There have been pitched battles, some bloody, some deadly, so a minority could reach legal parity to some degree. Race relations are still being fought over, and women will need to continue to fight. If indeed we are to give hope to other populations, such as the women of Afghanistan, who face the threat of being forced back into the middle ages, women need to win this fight. And support from men would be helpful. But guys, if you can't help, shut up and get out of the way.
Thanks for stopping by.
Friday, March 2, 2012
If I Were a Woman
What occurs to me is that the unconscionable attacks being made on women requires me to think about how I would feel if it were me under attack. Words that come to mind are shameful, distasteful, stupid, throwback, antediluvian, anachronistic, cowardice, un-Christian. That's just for starters. I'm glad it's Friday, because this discussion needs preparation. And it's really painful to restrict my language, because some of the words may not even be in a dictionary. But this one is coming. If I need to be a little controversial to get someone to disagree with me, then to quote my former President, "Bring it on." Have a nice weekend.
Thanks for stopping by.
Thanks for stopping by.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Our World
What occurs to me is that we have a great responsibility, living in this world. Ultimately, we own nothing, we only rent. Some of us rent more things than others, but nothing we have is ours forever in perpetuity. Simply put, we all die. Even our bodies are rented and return to the earth. Our responsibility is to manage our world as best we can, and leave it in as good shape as possible.
Consider for a moment that in the past 60 years, the world's population has grown from 2.5 billion to 6.8 billion people. Almost 3 times as many people inhabit this planet now as when I was born. Imagine a glass of water and it's all yours. Then there's another person, and you have to share your glass of water. Before the second person came along, you drank all you wanted, but now with less water, you have to share what's left. And then, a third person joins you and now with even less water, you have to share what's left with two other people. Now, with less to share, and three people who want to drink, you have to find a way so that each of you has water. But, if each gets some water, the glass will get emptier faster. What happens when the glass is empty?
This is what has happened in my lifetime. Over the past 40 years, the issues of world population growth and resource consumption have continued to elude solution. Let's suppose for a moment that climate change is not factually supported, regardless of the politics or science. There are two facts that still are unassailable. The first is that there will continue to be more people that our planet must support with basic necessities-food and water, clothing, and shelter. The second is that there is a finite amount of resources to share among the growing population. Consider all the political rhetoric about oil and gas prices, natural gas versus renewable and sustainable fuels, environmental protection versus drill, baby, drill. We have a limited supply of all resources, and as more people demand them, there will be a burgeoning threat to the stability of our economies, our governments, and our lives.
What happens when the glass is getting empty? We have only a few choices. We decrease the number of people who want the water, by force. We agree to limit the amount each can have, by agreement. We find other resources to replace what we will need, by research, education and exploration. We get to choose which path we travel. If we choose force, we have the water we want, but no new water. If we agree to share, we all have less water, but no new water. If we look for alternatives, we may run out before we find a new source. And there is looming another person who will want some water.
Have you ever heard the term, "peak oil"? It refers to the point in time where we reach the maximum oil extraction rate, after which the rate declines because we use it faster than supply can be replaced in the market, and because the overall availability of oil decreases because it becomes more difficult to find. Although it has been estimated that this point will be reached by 2020, pessimistic estimates state that we have already reached that point.
There are other resources which are similarly definable as limited. In fact, all are finite; some simply have longer lifespans. There only so much to go around, folks. Whether or not human existence is creating an alteration in our climate is relevant because it may hasten the utilization of the resources we need to continue life on this planet. Failure of governments to act on alternatives, finding replacement resources, will increase the chances that we will fight wars based on scarcity, rather than find timely solutions. If our job on earth is to hand our stewardship to generations to follow us, we must allocate human resources to that task, now and on-going. If not, all the rhetoric, particularly in Washington, D.C., about passing "debt" to our grandchildren is mere demagoguery.
Back to our glass of water. Water is the basis of all life on earth. The human body consists of 75% water. And even potable water is a limited resource. Perhaps not in our lifetime, but by the end of this century, known sources of water for drinking, cooking and washing, are going to disappear. Even today, it is estimated that 80% of the world's population has limited access to supplies of usable water.
We are all in this together. Sink or swim. If we are not aware or if we don't care, we are going to have failed in our responsibility to future generations. If we wait, we lose.
Thanks for stopping by.
Consider for a moment that in the past 60 years, the world's population has grown from 2.5 billion to 6.8 billion people. Almost 3 times as many people inhabit this planet now as when I was born. Imagine a glass of water and it's all yours. Then there's another person, and you have to share your glass of water. Before the second person came along, you drank all you wanted, but now with less water, you have to share what's left. And then, a third person joins you and now with even less water, you have to share what's left with two other people. Now, with less to share, and three people who want to drink, you have to find a way so that each of you has water. But, if each gets some water, the glass will get emptier faster. What happens when the glass is empty?
This is what has happened in my lifetime. Over the past 40 years, the issues of world population growth and resource consumption have continued to elude solution. Let's suppose for a moment that climate change is not factually supported, regardless of the politics or science. There are two facts that still are unassailable. The first is that there will continue to be more people that our planet must support with basic necessities-food and water, clothing, and shelter. The second is that there is a finite amount of resources to share among the growing population. Consider all the political rhetoric about oil and gas prices, natural gas versus renewable and sustainable fuels, environmental protection versus drill, baby, drill. We have a limited supply of all resources, and as more people demand them, there will be a burgeoning threat to the stability of our economies, our governments, and our lives.
What happens when the glass is getting empty? We have only a few choices. We decrease the number of people who want the water, by force. We agree to limit the amount each can have, by agreement. We find other resources to replace what we will need, by research, education and exploration. We get to choose which path we travel. If we choose force, we have the water we want, but no new water. If we agree to share, we all have less water, but no new water. If we look for alternatives, we may run out before we find a new source. And there is looming another person who will want some water.
Have you ever heard the term, "peak oil"? It refers to the point in time where we reach the maximum oil extraction rate, after which the rate declines because we use it faster than supply can be replaced in the market, and because the overall availability of oil decreases because it becomes more difficult to find. Although it has been estimated that this point will be reached by 2020, pessimistic estimates state that we have already reached that point.
There are other resources which are similarly definable as limited. In fact, all are finite; some simply have longer lifespans. There only so much to go around, folks. Whether or not human existence is creating an alteration in our climate is relevant because it may hasten the utilization of the resources we need to continue life on this planet. Failure of governments to act on alternatives, finding replacement resources, will increase the chances that we will fight wars based on scarcity, rather than find timely solutions. If our job on earth is to hand our stewardship to generations to follow us, we must allocate human resources to that task, now and on-going. If not, all the rhetoric, particularly in Washington, D.C., about passing "debt" to our grandchildren is mere demagoguery.
Back to our glass of water. Water is the basis of all life on earth. The human body consists of 75% water. And even potable water is a limited resource. Perhaps not in our lifetime, but by the end of this century, known sources of water for drinking, cooking and washing, are going to disappear. Even today, it is estimated that 80% of the world's population has limited access to supplies of usable water.
We are all in this together. Sink or swim. If we are not aware or if we don't care, we are going to have failed in our responsibility to future generations. If we wait, we lose.
Thanks for stopping by.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
The Day After
What occurs to me is that choosing a subject to write about is
difficult; there is truly a universe of material. My first concern here
is produce a thoughtful script, which will generate conversation. At
my age, I have finally learned that I am not always right. Nor do I
know everything. Frankly, that is not humility, merely realism. As a
consequence, I hope that when I write something which is either wrong or
disagreeable that you will comment, but nicely. My second concern and first chore is to figure out the nuances of the host site, so I can make this effort worth your time and mine. I would like to make access easy, commenting easier, and finding this spot easiest.
Although I decided whimsically to create this blog, as a means to express my thoughts, and gather yours, I want you to know what I will be writing about in future entries. In an election year, what else but politics. But I intend to talk about other topics which affect me, you and the world. The environment, space exploration, books, movies, sports, politics, finance, the Occupy movement, education, gardening, food, politics, QVC, Christmas, friendship and family-ship, health care, Medicare, housing and mortgages, the Constitution, pets, charities, employment and unemployment, social media, politics, and lists. This is not intended to exhaust the options. And if you leave comments, I have even more to talk about.
Hopefully, this will be fun, and occasionally funny. Thanks for stopping by!
Although I decided whimsically to create this blog, as a means to express my thoughts, and gather yours, I want you to know what I will be writing about in future entries. In an election year, what else but politics. But I intend to talk about other topics which affect me, you and the world. The environment, space exploration, books, movies, sports, politics, finance, the Occupy movement, education, gardening, food, politics, QVC, Christmas, friendship and family-ship, health care, Medicare, housing and mortgages, the Constitution, pets, charities, employment and unemployment, social media, politics, and lists. This is not intended to exhaust the options. And if you leave comments, I have even more to talk about.
Hopefully, this will be fun, and occasionally funny. Thanks for stopping by!
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
I'd like to introduce myself
What occurs to me is that having something worthwhile to say requires thought more significant than a Tweet or sound bite. If writing about anything is to be worth the effort, then what you say has to be worthy of any reader who might stop by. So if you are one of those, thank you. This is my first post, and not likely to be the last.
To start, let me tell you a little about myself. You can decide if you want to go further after that. I am a white male, nearly at retirement age. I have been writing for many years, just never attempted to publish, until recently. I hold bachelor's and master's degrees from Cornell. I grew up in NY, but have had the pleasure of living in various parts of the country, and have traveled the US on the ground, not only at 32,000 feet. I am a reader, which will certainly be part of future posts. I love movies, but watch mainly on TV. I used to be a jock. I am a boot strap liberal, and a meat and potatoes conservative. More about that later. I am a political junkie, and have been for more than 40 years. I enjoy music, with a fallback to the music of the 1960s. Hey, its when I grew up. I'm married with grown children. I grew up with the NY Yankees, when the Dodgers were in Brooklyn, and the Giants played at the Polo Grounds. I saw Mickey Mantle, Duke Snider and Willie Mays hit home runs, while I was in the stands. Today, after living in southern New Jersey for more than half my life, I am a "homer", a Phillies fan. And I still love baseball.
I decided to create this blog because I have felt frustrated by the lack of vocal visibility to many people, and the failure of standard media sources to ask questions that I think should be asked, and to look at events from what hopefully will be a unique perspective. I love words, because they DO matter. I hope you will join me and explore the myriad of subjects that makes our world interesting. And please let me know you're there.
My first comment is simply this: Jeremy Lin is a great story. As the first Chinese American making his debut in professional basketball, it's just cool to be able to make the headlines he has made. In my opinion, what makes his success so significant is not that he is of Chinese ancestry, but that he went to Harvard. He's smart. And he's cool. Maybe we ought to learn that it's cool to be smart.
Thanks for stopping by.
To start, let me tell you a little about myself. You can decide if you want to go further after that. I am a white male, nearly at retirement age. I have been writing for many years, just never attempted to publish, until recently. I hold bachelor's and master's degrees from Cornell. I grew up in NY, but have had the pleasure of living in various parts of the country, and have traveled the US on the ground, not only at 32,000 feet. I am a reader, which will certainly be part of future posts. I love movies, but watch mainly on TV. I used to be a jock. I am a boot strap liberal, and a meat and potatoes conservative. More about that later. I am a political junkie, and have been for more than 40 years. I enjoy music, with a fallback to the music of the 1960s. Hey, its when I grew up. I'm married with grown children. I grew up with the NY Yankees, when the Dodgers were in Brooklyn, and the Giants played at the Polo Grounds. I saw Mickey Mantle, Duke Snider and Willie Mays hit home runs, while I was in the stands. Today, after living in southern New Jersey for more than half my life, I am a "homer", a Phillies fan. And I still love baseball.
I decided to create this blog because I have felt frustrated by the lack of vocal visibility to many people, and the failure of standard media sources to ask questions that I think should be asked, and to look at events from what hopefully will be a unique perspective. I love words, because they DO matter. I hope you will join me and explore the myriad of subjects that makes our world interesting. And please let me know you're there.
My first comment is simply this: Jeremy Lin is a great story. As the first Chinese American making his debut in professional basketball, it's just cool to be able to make the headlines he has made. In my opinion, what makes his success so significant is not that he is of Chinese ancestry, but that he went to Harvard. He's smart. And he's cool. Maybe we ought to learn that it's cool to be smart.
Thanks for stopping by.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)